http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light
postulate."

Is it true that "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity" and did not use it as
support for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate? Let us
see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had
an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity
of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate
system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a
velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the
fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches
of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it
hold for only one system? he asked.
He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that
street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C
for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced,
moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here?
When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear
that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold.
Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson
showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light
traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to
the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor
Einstein asked."

Clearly Einsteiniana's fundamental lie:

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate"

was devised by Einstein himself. The lie, repeated countless times, is
now a truth (Goebbels' principle):

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from."

http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) The rest of my research work was
going well, though, and a year or so later I was overjoyed to find
that I had been awarded a Royal Society fellowship. This fellowship is
the most desirable junior research position available in Britain,
perhaps anywhere. It gives you funding and security for up to ten
years as well as the freedom to do whatever you want and go wherever
you want. At this stage, I decided that I had had enough of Cambridge,
and that it was time to go somewhere different. I have always loved
big cities, so I chose to go to Imperial College, in London, a top
university for theoretical physics."

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...vite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses
expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu
les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est
invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne
se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement."

http://www.techno-science.net/?ongle...efinition=1711
"En effet, dès la fin du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences (notamment,
celle de Michelson) et observations laissaient apparaître une vitesse
de la lumière dans le vide identique dans tous les repères
inertiels."

http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/?p=9459
Paul Jorion: "Ce que Michelson et Morley parvinrent à établir grâce à
l'expérience qu'ils réalisèrent en 1887 (Michelson la répéterait en
1897 à lUniversité de Chicago où il enseignait désormais), c'est que
le principe newtonien ne s'applique pas à la lumière. Imaginons cette
fois, que vous vous trouvez sur le toit d'un vaisseau intergalactique
se déplaçant dans l'espace à la moitié de la vitesse de la lumière et
que vous dirigez le faisceau de lumière émanant d'une torche d'un
modèle courant dans la direction où progresse le vaisseau stellaire.
Si le principe newtonien d'addition des vitesses s'appliquait à la
lumière émanant de votre torche, elle voyagerait maintenant à une
vitesse égale à une fois et demie celle de la lumière. Or, ce que l'«
expérience cruciale » de Michelson et Morley révéla, c'est que ce
n'est pas le cas : le principe d'additivité des vitesses ne s'applique
pas : quelle que soit la vitesse à laquelle se déplace l'émetteur de
lumière, la vitesse de la lumière dans le faisceau émis est c : 300
000 kilomètres par seconde, ni plus ni moins. Autrement dit, la
vitesse de la lumière est constante (c représente en fait la vitesse
de la lumière dans un vide)."

http://philosophie.initiation.cours....-48902702.html
"A la fin du XIXème siècle, les travaux de deux physiciens, Michelson
et Morley, mirent en évidence le constat suivant : quelque soit le
référentiel utilisé, la vitesse de la lumière est constante, ce qui
est en totale contradiction avec la vision classique ayant cours à
leur époque."

http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/p...at/51relat.htm
Claude SAINT-BLANQUET, Maître de conférences: "Compte tenu des
résultats de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley, on doit renoncer à
la transformation de Galilée."

Pentcho Valev